> And they presented it at Hushcon before with approval so what's the problem with that?

Why do you think they got approval at Hushcon?

Because Salesforce did nothing after hushcon? Which means it would have been approved.. say if it wasn't approved, isn't that a failure on SF's part because the employees would think it's fine.

I don't see why you keep defending Salesforce, they did mess up even if say the employees did not go through the approval process. You don't fire People over that, especially if previous talks are public on the same subject. Especially not at Defcon. That's why SF is in the wrong.

There's a lot of assumptions in this interpretation of events. It's entirely possible that warnings were issued after hushcon and that's why action was so severe this time around. It's also possible that no warnings were ever issued and there is blame for overreacting due to the management. Either way, it seems like there's plenty of information available for interpretation but not conclusion in this scenario.